Machiavelli's Revenge

I find this item particularly insightful in that it clarifies the history of the management failure of the Iraq occupation.

Bandar’s advice was available to any student of simple history let alone the talent available.

And you put a boy in charge because he will blindly follow orders. Hitler had that trick down pat.

Why do we put boys in charge who lack a deep understanding of human nature? If I have a criticism of the modern polity, it is this visible lack of, for lack of a better term, street smarts. If you have them, you know it. If you do not, you betray your lack by the simple act of opening your mouth.

A great leader needs to have understood Machiavelli, have internalized his teachings and to then never admit any of it. Obama has yet to show me that he understands. Bush and Clinton both failed horribly in this respect on the international front. And before someone leaps to Bill’s defense, his error was one of active avoidance. This is subtle but nonetheless as damaging. Rwanda needed desperate immediate action. And Osama did everything except send a Western Union wire declaring war while we pussy footed around.

The only good reason for attacking Iraq was a belief in the intelligence assessment. Had that actually been correct, it would have been almost unique in the annals of war.

Today we have enthusiastic intelligence assessments on Iran’s developing nuclear capability. These are just as useful. George Bush had learned a bit of sense and thwarted any Israeli efforts this past fall. Can Obama keep from been roped into such folly?

The next logical step in forcing Iran to come to terms with the fact that its possession of nuclear weapons will not be tolerated is to interdict all shipments of oil. That includes bombing any pipelines going out of the country. After all we need to now reduce production anyway.

And while you are at it, ask the Russians to do the bombing as mandated by the UN. They need to showcase their air force.

If that debate does not start some serious negotiation then they are really nuts.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/20/machiavellis-revenge

Machiavelli's Revenge

By Jeremy Lott on 1.20.09 @ 6:06AM

George W. Bush's relationship with Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar was a close one. They were sometimes spotted holding hands in public in observance of Saudi custom. So when Bandar came calling at the White House shortly after Baghdad had fallen to American forces, we might expect that what he said carried serious weight.

Bandar was worried about the stability of the country. He urged Bush not to disband Iraq's military or intelligence services. The prince advised that Bush should remove the Iraqi leadership "because of their bloody hands" but not do away with Iraqi institutions. Rather, he should fire everyone down to the rank of colonel in the military and a similar rank in the intelligence services, and use those underlings to find Saddam Hussein, who was still on the lam, and to root out Baathist loyalists and other troublemakers.

Bandar encountered resistance so he pressed the point. The underlings might not be the greatest people, but they could help to stabilize Iraq, and it wasn't as if the U.S. government would be obliged to hand the country over to them. "Look, bad people find bad people and then after that you get rid of them." Bandar said. "Double cross them. I mean, for God's sake, who said that we owe them anything?"

"That's too Machiavellian," said someone who took part in that White House meeting. According to Bob Woodward, the speaker was either President Bush or national security adviser and future secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. The Bush administration went ahead and disbanded the military -- with predictable results. Iraq devolved into chaos and sectionalism, and far too much blood was shed.

"Too Machiavellian..." It would be harder to come up with a more pithy summary of why Bush's foreign policy fell apart. He never understood that his soaring rhetoric of human freedom needed to be tempered by guile and the particular interests of his own nation.

It's one thing to say that "freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God" or that "liberty and justice light the path to peace," as Bush did in his final televised address from the White House. Those are fairly standard staples of presidential rhetoric. It's quite another to decide that the world should conform to your ideals and go mucking about the globe assuming that everyone -- from heads of state to angry mullahs to rock throwing, mortar-launching mobs -- will suddenly slap their foreheads and wonder, "Why didn't we think of that?"

Many critics claim that Bush lied us into war in Iraq but that gives him more credit than he merits. Bush is a decent but extremely naive man who could never see the wisdom in Machiavelli's advice that, say, a ruler should preach virtue but practice it sparingly; encourage the oppressed but not with the force of your own armies, unless you're in the market for new territory; regard reports of spies with skepticism; and be wary of the advice of flatterers and men with axes to grind.

Bush talked often of good and evil, but couldn't recognize evil when he observed it in its more banal permutations. He said publicly that Vladimir Putin had a good soul and then appeared shocked when Putin went on to behave like just about every other Russian autocrat save Czar Alexander II. He never could understand why many countries resisted going into Iraq to spread freedom.

In fact, Bush got so caught up in his notion of democracy promotion that his State Department insisted Hamas be allowed to stand for election in Palestine. The geniuses at Foggy Bottom looked at polls that predicted the terror-sponsoring organization probably wouldn't win, took a cue from their starry-eyed commander-in-chief, and figured, what could it hurt?

Obama and Amending the Constitution

One of the interesting side stories of the candidacy of Barrack Obama is the persistent story that he was born in Kenya and that his mother immediately returned with the new born to her Hawaiian home to claim and register birth in the USA. The problem, of course, is that this story rings true. This has been a consistent practice among mothers who had the option and we can be sure that she planned to come to the USA before the due date and at least certainly did so. That the child may have not been born in the USA thus becomes a real possibility that is not eliminated by the judicious stonewalling and obfuscation been practiced by the campaign on this and other Obama records. In fact it provides a clear motive to not release any documentation except under duress and clarifies his peculiar behavior over this matter.

This particular feature of the constitution should have been eliminated long ago and it serves no practical purpose whatsoever and merely demonstrates a lingering fear that the American electorate will not get it right. If we end up with a duly elected president who is legitimately disqualified from taking office, then we have a real constitutional crisis. What makes it so choice is that I suspect that everything could be legal up the point in which he is sworn into office.

Obama has been clearly brought up and has lived his adult life as an American citizen. It would be an injustice to deny his right to stand for office on what is a technicality. This is a good example of the law and in this case the constitution been an ass.

On the other hand, this is an excellent time and place in which to push through the appropriate constitutional change on this matter. In fact, we likely have no better time. The Democrats will have a majority in both houses and the presidency itself and are in a position to push through such a constitutional amendment. I expect that the Republicans will find ample reason to support it also. And that will end the static over his mother’s choices.

Since it appears that we are about to be graced with an Obama presidency, which in view of his tactical reticence is shaping up so far to be a mystery, a few thoughts are perhaps in order.

The man is a lawyer by training and a polished speaker who should become a gifted legislator. Because of his age, he may find that an attractive option. Bill Clinton should consider the same option. I have grown up in a world were the top post is held by a parliamentarian and find it quite appropriate.

He was delivered into office as a Chicago machine politician with all the vote rigging and baggage that goes with that. If you wish to believe otherwise read this article:

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_voter_fraud/2008/10/27/144303.html?s=al&promo_code=6E3F-1

Somehow that machine has kept their candidate inside a media cocoon that has made no issue out of his many politically incorrect lapses from the past. This will likely come back to haunt him and certainly gives the machine a lot of undue influence.

He must now try to rise above all that in the same way that Kennedy was able to. Kennedy’s daddy was a sweetheart and it probably helped that he was struck down before his influence might have been felt.

He has been associated with a lot of the classic far left political clichés. This is perfectly harmless so long as he actually does not think that they are real policy. The wacko left and the wacko right both have curious positions that politicians need to at least give a nod to. Implementing those weird positions is an excellent method of mobilizing ninety percent of the population against you.

His foreign policy credentials are on a par with those of George Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter on entering the white House. Until he has had time on the job, he will not be deft and the challenge will initially be to not make any obvious blunders. Expect more sympathy for Africa in particular and the third world in general. Just do not expect more money.

My real fear is that he does not understand the Laffer curve and is unable to rein in the very stupid people in his own camp who think that they now have a mandate to jack up taxes. If we can stay the course on taxation policy and implement the regulatory governors put in place seventy years ago and removed a mere ten years ago, we will be fine. If we can then implement a number of other useful programs such as universal health care properly by making the states run it as was done in Canada, the country will emerge much stronger from the disaster.

Race issues will be on the agenda whether by choice or otherwise. It needs to be ignored because it is actually resolving itself through simple age. What must not be ignored is poverty. Once again read my item on minimum wage and home ownership.

Poverty and Medical care are both resolved the same way. You establish a service floor for one hundred percent of the population. Otherwise, your system will be naturally gamed in such a way that a third of the population will be disadvantaged while a third pays way too much for the privilege of service. By establishing a floor you are simply moving the game to a higher more naturally stable level while lowering the cost.

Should he win, it is likely that he will face a savage drop in governmental revenues and the need to accommodate a deepening and unavoidable recession over the length of his term. It will be interesting to see how his reputation fares and how long the media wolves will then hold off.